Debate Guide: The violent sexual predator: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
:''"In an intergenerational relationship involving an adult and a minor, exploitation is not only an automatic consequence but the willed action of the adult. At the most extreme end (with pedophiles), this lust is as destructive as it is affective, and as eventually violent as it is initially civil"''.
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Let me tell you something about how these slime operate. Pedophilia is pathological narcissism let loose on the vulnerable; they live and they breathe, just to exploit the weak and needy. Psychiatrists will tell you <u>these men are literal reptilians</u>; their brain circuitry is so damaged, it "bypasses" the mammalian. While molesters might be able to play the "lover" role initially, this is recalled from reflexive memory, and it's a ruse. Children who have escaped the pedophile's clutches alive, will tell you the pedophile's lust is grasping, ravenous and destructive - an orgasmic violence <u>beyond his own control.</u>'''''</font></blockquote>


There is [http://www.mhamic.org/characteristics/characteristicsintro.htm no evidence] to show that such sexual affection is psychologically intertwined with a destructive impulse. It makes no [[Debate Guide: Evolutionary logic|evolutionary sense]] either, especially concerning pedophilia, since the younger members of a species are typically the most vulnerable, and pedophilia is [[Research: Prevalence|relatively common]]. One who argues this position has clearly failed to understand, let alone take a look at the online [http://annabelleigh.net pedophile community] - a group of individuals who seem to contradict this argument. Pedophilia, is as its etymology suggests, an affective condition. Ask a pedophile, or someone who admits to feeling sexually attracted towards children. [[Your arguments must be self-serving|It's about time]] one was heard.
There is [[Research: Psychopathy and abnormal psychology|no evidence]]<ref>[http://www.mhamic.org/characteristics/characteristicsintro.htm MHAMIc - Characteristics]</ref> to show affective sexuality is psychologically intertwined somehow with a destructive impulse. There are also [[Research: Sexual repression|many documented harms of sexual repression in childhood]], which might explain the combination of "reptilian" behaviors and puritanical beliefs among psychopathic attackers and murderers who target women and children.


Throughout human history and the development of psychology as a discipline, sexual sensuality and violence have stood apart as virtual opposites, only combining in some instances of attempted mating and erotic humiliation in societies that are largely sex-negative or tolerant of violence. Laboratory studies show that "pleasure and violence have a reciprocal relationship, that is, ''the presence of one inhibits the other''."[http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html] The repression of sensuality and sexual outlet, especially in adolescence does not only deny pleasure. In fact, the poor example that denial of affection and sexual pleasure sets is likely to lead to violence (see [http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html this] article, and the associated website). As already demonstrated, there are no outstanding reasons to believe that preferential, non-expressed pedophilia differs from the rest of human sexuality in this regard.
This outdated pathology perspective from the 1970s and 80s makes zero [[Debate Guide: Evolutionary logic|evolutionary sense]] concerning pedophilia, since:
 
*Pedophilia is [[Research: Prevalence|relatively common]] in humans (1-5% of men), i.e. common enough to cause severe and visible harms if it is indeed destructive and uncontrollable.
*The younger members of a species are until a certain age, physically the most vulnerable. Therefore if (during any time of prolonged peace) a population's pedophiles repeatedly raped, maimed and killed their own children, said society would die out within a few generations.
 
One who argues this position has clearly failed to consider the above factors in combination. They have also clearly not taken the time to browse thru [[Minor attracted community|MAP communities]], or if they have, they are deliberately seeking to misrepresent minor attracted people (we have sometimes personally witnessed this tendency in vigilante groups). Our [[Research|research resources]] on minor attraction document various studies that use samples from the online community. Pedophilia, is as its etymology suggests, a philia (love). Ask a pedophile, or someone who admits to feeling sexually attracted towards children, since they are best placed [[Debate Guide: Your arguments must be self-serving|to speak on these matters]].
 
Despite the relative popularity of the pathological model in the hysterias of the 70s, 80s and following decades, science debasing this theory has always existed, yet has been ignored in the clamor for a new folk-devil. In the fields of psychology and ethnography for example, it has often been observed that the more sex-negative societies, and/or those tolerant of violence, tend to have higher rates of sexual assault. Laboratory studies suggest that pleasure and violence exist in a reciprocal inverse relationship in which ''the presence of one is associated with the absence of the other''. In this sense, it is likely the repression of sensuality and sexual outlet, especially in adolescence does not only deny pleasure, but socially normalizes violence.<ref>[http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html Prescott - Origins of peace and Violence]</ref> As already demonstrated, there are no outstanding reasons to believe that preferential, non-expressed pedophilia differs from the rest of human sexuality in this regard.
 
==See also==
 
Nonwestern and Animal perspectives would appear to suggest the assumptions inherent to these arguments have more to do with human culture and horror fascination (fear of the unknown) than hypothetical innate mechanisms such as sexual pathology:
 
*[[Research: Intergenerational Sexual Behaviors in Animals]]
*[[Research: Nonwestern Intergenerational Relationships]]
*[[Research: Sexual repression]]
 
==References==


[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]]


[[fr:Guide de débat: Le sexe et la violence ne sont qu'un dans le psychisme]]
[[fr:Guide de débat: Le sexe et la violence ne sont qu'un dans le psychisme]]

Latest revision as of 12:00, 28 April 2024

Let me tell you something about how these slime operate. Pedophilia is pathological narcissism let loose on the vulnerable; they live and they breathe, just to exploit the weak and needy. Psychiatrists will tell you these men are literal reptilians; their brain circuitry is so damaged, it "bypasses" the mammalian. While molesters might be able to play the "lover" role initially, this is recalled from reflexive memory, and it's a ruse. Children who have escaped the pedophile's clutches alive, will tell you the pedophile's lust is grasping, ravenous and destructive - an orgasmic violence beyond his own control.

There is no evidence[1] to show affective sexuality is psychologically intertwined somehow with a destructive impulse. There are also many documented harms of sexual repression in childhood, which might explain the combination of "reptilian" behaviors and puritanical beliefs among psychopathic attackers and murderers who target women and children.

This outdated pathology perspective from the 1970s and 80s makes zero evolutionary sense concerning pedophilia, since:

  • Pedophilia is relatively common in humans (1-5% of men), i.e. common enough to cause severe and visible harms if it is indeed destructive and uncontrollable.
  • The younger members of a species are until a certain age, physically the most vulnerable. Therefore if (during any time of prolonged peace) a population's pedophiles repeatedly raped, maimed and killed their own children, said society would die out within a few generations.

One who argues this position has clearly failed to consider the above factors in combination. They have also clearly not taken the time to browse thru MAP communities, or if they have, they are deliberately seeking to misrepresent minor attracted people (we have sometimes personally witnessed this tendency in vigilante groups). Our research resources on minor attraction document various studies that use samples from the online community. Pedophilia, is as its etymology suggests, a philia (love). Ask a pedophile, or someone who admits to feeling sexually attracted towards children, since they are best placed to speak on these matters.

Despite the relative popularity of the pathological model in the hysterias of the 70s, 80s and following decades, science debasing this theory has always existed, yet has been ignored in the clamor for a new folk-devil. In the fields of psychology and ethnography for example, it has often been observed that the more sex-negative societies, and/or those tolerant of violence, tend to have higher rates of sexual assault. Laboratory studies suggest that pleasure and violence exist in a reciprocal inverse relationship in which the presence of one is associated with the absence of the other. In this sense, it is likely the repression of sensuality and sexual outlet, especially in adolescence does not only deny pleasure, but socially normalizes violence.[2] As already demonstrated, there are no outstanding reasons to believe that preferential, non-expressed pedophilia differs from the rest of human sexuality in this regard.

See also

Nonwestern and Animal perspectives would appear to suggest the assumptions inherent to these arguments have more to do with human culture and horror fascination (fear of the unknown) than hypothetical innate mechanisms such as sexual pathology:

References